Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[MG1962]

OK, so we shouldn't take these people at face value. Like when they say "six million" they don't literally mean six million people. They're just using hyperbole to make a point.

Brilliant extrapolation - hopelessly wrong but brilliant all the same

 

[Dogzilla]

.
Or has been misquoted. Or is the victim of a bad translation. Or any number of other options...
.

OK, so the bottom line is the information isn't reliable. Got it.

 

[Dogzilla]

Brilliant extrapolation - hopelessly wrong but brilliant all the same

Brilliant? It's not a "brilliant" extrapolation. In fact, it's a pretty obvious one. However, how it's wrong needs a little more explanation.

 

[Dogzilla]

Are you ever going to get around to telling us which of the 14 lines on that THHP page is the lie?
.

Who cares what kind of hyperbole THHP publishes when you've got the Simon Wiesenthal Center hyperbolizing out it's arse? From their Responses to Revisionist Arguments: "The evidence is, in fact, so overwhelming that on October 9, 1981, Judge Thomas T. Johnson of the California Superior Court, took judicial notice of the Holocaust ruling that, "The Holocaust is not reasonably subject to dispute. It is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to resources of reasonable indisputable accuracy. It is simply a fact."

I bet you can't spot the lie.

 

[TSR]

OK, so the bottom line is the information isn't reliable. Got it.

.
No.

The bottom line is that a random eyewitness could not be expected to be accurate on that specific detail. This does not say anything at all about anything else that witness may have witnessed.

For that, we need to know more about the context, which Saggs so generously does *not* supply us. Who is being quoted in that excerpt, under what conditions? Were they in a position to have personal knowledge of the matter? Has Saggs once again left off part of the quote and all of the context when zie whines about that "first Holocaust"? (Peaking of which, when are we going to get those links to the NYT and proof that the articles were written at the behest of the WJC?) Might it not begin "I was told by < someone > < all of the rest of the referenced text >? Might Saggs once again be making things up out of whole cloth, the way zie did with the "childrens' zoo" and the plumbing at Dachau?

This isn't a black and white, falsus in uno situation, no matter how much you want it to be because it's harder to actually face the facts. You do what little credibility you have left no good by trying to make it such.
.

 

[TSR]

Who cares what kind of hyperbole THHP publishes when you've got the Simon Wiesenthal Center hyperbolizing out it's arse? From their Responses to Revisionist Arguments: "The evidence is, in fact, so overwhelming that on October 9, 1981, Judge Thomas T. Johnson of the California Superior Court, took judicial notice of the Holocaust ruling that, "The Holocaust is not reasonably subject to dispute. It is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to resources of reasonable indisputable accuracy. It is simply a fact."

I bet you can't spot the lie.

.
CM does, when zie avoided addressing evidence zie had asked for by saying that THHP was nothing but lies written by a bunch of liars. And then posted a page containing 14 lines as support for that assertion. Zie has yet to tell us which of those lines contains the knowing untruth, mainly because zie cannot because none are, making zir first assertion itself a lie. As is your assertion that anything on that site is exaggerated for effect.

If you refer to the conflation of "the Holocaust" with "the fact that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944" and substituting that for the actual wording of "it is not reasonably" I would put that several rungs below your attempted lie that the eyewitnesses, individually, came up with the 6M number, which you then use to try to discount the entire testimony on the "falsus in uno" fallacy, that's another subject. The date listed is probably wrong as well, since that was the date that the motions for summary judgement were filed in the case, which may or may not be when the ruling was issued, and probably was not. Or maybe the fact that it was a Los Angeles County court, and not a state court that has your knickers in a twist?

The thing is, no one every uses the Museum of Tolerance as a primary source for *anything*. But since CM has in so many words stated that zie does not usually offer sources, this means zie is zir own primary source, and the accuracy of that source is a legitimate topic for rebuttal.

IOW: The Museum for Tolerance is not a good source because of these errors, full stop. Would you make the same admission regarding CM or Saggs (or really, *any* denier)?

But one *does* note that you utter not a peep about your comrades' lies, and the frequency thereof...
.

 

[TSR]

Brilliant? It's not a "brilliant" extrapolation. In fact, it's a pretty obvious one. However, how it's wrong needs a little more explanation.

.
Actually, it's neither -- W forgot the <sarcasm> tags which you were apparently too dim to understand were implied like the rest of us.

And it's been explained: Those eyewitnesses did not calculate the total death toll, which they had no way of doing anyhow, so your attempt to impeach that figure on the basis that they had is rank dishonesty on your part.

Shall I break it down into smaller words for you?
.

 

[Robrob]

Oh. OK. So the Jew might not be lying. It might be that he simply doesn't know what he's talking about?

.
Or has been misquoted. Or is the victim of a bad translation. Or any number of other options...
.

Ever notice how they:

1) Sound so racist?

2) Always pretend there is no other possible explanation for anything they don't understand than "lying?"

 

[LemmyCaution]

The Jaeger Report is evidence of anti-partisan actions. Some might say the anti-partisan actions were sometimes excessive but unfortunately excesses have always been a part of war. Even if it were evidence of mass murder actions, it does not 'therefore' follow that there is good evidence for mass murders at Ponar.

Well, this is one claim you tried making, isn't it? But let's look at how you jump around and why it is hard to take your "arguments" seriously.

Your positions on the Eastern exterminations are all over the map. You have said you always thought that they took place, but you don't really know a lot about them. And, now, after discussion of Ponar, you think the evidence for these killings might be "pathetic."

With regard to the Jaeger Report, one of these possibly "pathetic" documents, you argue that it is simultaneously an example of 1) a "cleaning," according to the UN definition, 2) anti-partisan operations, possibly and unfortunately excessive, and 3) a "local" rogue action like Abu Ghraib. These three attempts to deflect, deny, and negate contradict one another, presenting diametrically opposed views of what actions were carried out. But, in denial, you try putting all three over on the readers of this thread.

Let's take them one by one:

Ethnic cleansing: You wrote that the Jaeger Report uses "the type of language we see when the overall Jewish policy of the German government is an ethnic cleansing." You also wrote that you definition of ethnic cleansing is the same as the UN's, a commission of which defined ethnic cleansing this way in 1983: "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous." In the case of the Jaeger Report, we have 1) no evidence of removal such as deportation and no destination for those affected, 2) we have an accounting of the murders of about 130,000 Jews (and a small number of others) by EK 3 and Lithuanian groups "under my command" in summer/fall 1941, out of a population of 210,00 Jews in Lithuania (counting earlier operations, in fact, Jaeger gave the total executions as 137,346), 3) we have specifically Jewish victims, one-third of them children, along with small numbers of other listed victims, and 4) we have Jaeger's explanations for his actions: "there are no more Jews, other than the Work Jews, including their families" in Lithuania - "I also wanted to kill these Work Jews, including their families" but Jaeger had to allow them to live as the civil administration and the military wanted to exploit their labor power, at least temporarily, ordering that "the Work Jews and their families are not to be shot!"

These is no mention made by Jaeger of removal of Jews to another place - mainly Jaeger discusses and itemizes killings and shootings that had taken place; Jeager, in his commentary, also states his expectation that as economic needs would continue through winter and thus the surviving Jews of Lithuania would be kept alive to for the purpose of work (Jaeger gives 34,000 surviving Jews in 3 cities), "sterilization of the male Work Jews should begin immediately to prevent reproduction. Should a Jewess nonetheless become pregnant, she is to be liquidated." Again, the report is totally at odds with the UN definition of ethnic cleansing, and your groundless claim, and speaks only of measures to reduce population through murder and prevention of reproduction, not the separation of ethnic groups.

Your ploy with ethnic cleansing is not only at odds and internally contradictory to your other claims of anti-partisan operations and rogue actions - but by Jaeger's very words in his report the notion that he wrote about or used the language of ethnic cleansing explodes like a trick cigar in your face. You have outmaneuvered yourself with this idiotic claim - and had you read Jaeger's Report, you might have saved yourself the embarrassment.

Anti-partisan operations: Most of Jaeger's entries read like this one for Vilna 12 September 1941 (this is the ghetto operation which followed the Great Provocation action, which Schloss and Trojak survived to testify about) "City of Wilna - 993 Jews, 1670 Jewesses, 771 J child. 3,334."

A few of the killings are indeed listed as either reprisals or penal operations. One example is this one on 11-12 September at Uzusalis: "Penal operation against inhabitants who fed Russ. partisans and some of whom were in possession of weapons." with 43 unidentified victims. The overwhelming majority of actions simply list Jews, Jewesses and Jewish children, and Jaeger is explicit about the few exceptions because they are exceptions. Reading other documents will make one wary of the extent to which even those listed as reprisals and penal operations truly fit that definition. But if we take Jaeger's claims at face value, the reprisal and penal actions amount to little more than a rounding error in his overall accounting of mass murder. That is because the report explicitly states that most of the murders, by far, weren't responses to alleged attacks, partisan operations, subversion, etc. and that only a tiny minority of the murders were such responses.

Further, the manner of the killings makes clear that they were not anti-reprisal operations. Jews (not partisans or shooters or subversives - but Jewish families) were rounded up where they lived and taken to killing sites for the explicit and stated purposes of 1) making every district free of Jews by 2) their being executed in specially dug pits: "The implementation of such activities is primarily a question of organization. The decision to systematically make every district free of Jews necessitated an exhaustive preparation of each individual operation and reconnaissance of the prevailing circumstances in the applicable district. The Jews had to be assembled at one or several locations. Depending on the number, a place for the required pits had to be found and the pits dug. The marching route from the assembly place to the pits amounted on average to 4 to 5 kilometers. The Jews were transported to the place of execution in detachments of 500, at intervals of at least 2 kilometers. The attendant difficulties and nerve-wracking activity occasioned in doing this are shown in a randomly selected example: In Rokiskis, 3,208 people had to be transported 4.5 kilometers before they could be liquidated. To accomplish this task in 24 hours, more than 60 of the 80 available Lithuanian partisans had to be allocated for transportation and cordoning off duty."

As discussed above, the itemization of killings is mostly about Jews, Jewesses, and Jewish children, who were rounded up by commandos under Jaeger's authority, taken to killing areas, and executed as described by Jaeger, with pride in accomplishment.

Your fervent wish to label these killings as anti-partisan executions not only contradicts your claim that Jaeger described ethnic cleansing (removals) but also runs up against the rather clear statements Jaeger made in his report.

Again, I ask you to explain to readers of this thread precisely what partisan activity led to the rounding up of Jewish families in cities and towns across Lithuania and to the executions by Jaeger's count of 130,000 of these people.

Rogue operation: I have already written about the absurd comparison you make of the killing of 10s of 1000s of Jews to the torture at Abu Ghraib. Further, the Lithuania killings took place explicitly within the chain of command. They were reported to senior leaders including the civil administration for the Ostland; the Gestapo in Berlin; military authorities; and dozens of state and party officials beyond these. On this thread, we have discussed at least three kinds of reports filed on the killings in Lithuania: the Ereignismeldungen (compiled by the Gestapo based on field reports from the Einstazgruppen and widely distributed within the Reiich leadership); Jaeger's Report marked "Reich Secret Business!"; and a military report, the 403rd Secuitry Dvision's observation of good Wehrmacht and Einsatzgruppen cooperation in the killings. None of this is characteristic of the rogue operation you tried to pass these killings off to be. Again, your ploy that these killings were rogue or simply local contradicts the evidence as well as your other attempts to characterize the executions as reprisals or ethnic cleansing.

No, your fishing expedition, with three self-conflicting thrusts, has come up empty.

Now is time for you to PM bunny and ask about how and when to play the forgery card.

You clearly don't know a thing about the Jaeger Report or its context. As you yourself noted, this discussion is "about something which I admit I am not knowledgeable," but that manifest ignorance doesn't stop you from taking multiple, self-contradictory, negationist positions. In fact, you are showing yourself - and you know I could list more - as a pure knee-jerk negationist who hasn't done the research or the thinking but wants desperately to remain in denial and clutches at any straw to do so.

 

[Nick Terry]

This is something for everyone.

Holocaust Controversies blog have been working for some time on a major critique of the leading Holocaust denier gurus Carlo Mattogno, Juergen Graf and Thomas Kues. Our chosen target was a trilogy of books on the Aktion Reinhard camps of Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka which were co-authored by various combinations of these three deniers from 2002-2010.

There were five people involved in drafting and editing the critique, which has since grown to more than 570pp and a quarter of a million words; if this is thought excessive, then the targeted books come to significantly more than 300,000 words. We have gone with the 'white paper' format that has been seen round these parts in the 9/11 forum on occasion, and are releasing the critique firstly as a series of blog posts, a couple of chapters per day, with a PDF version to be made available at the end of this week.

The table of contents to the critique is up on the blog here, with links. I reproduce the full TOC including chapters being posted over the next couple of days, to give you an idea of what to expect from the contents. Chapter titles are bolded, the rest are section headings.

[FONT=&quot]Introduction[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]7[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Overview and Historiography of Aktion Reinhard[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]14[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sources[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]26[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Structure of the Critique[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]34[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Hoax That Dare Not Speak Its Name[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]39[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Wartime Reports[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]44[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Investigations and Trials[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]70[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Nazi Policy[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]91[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Extermination of Soviet Jews, June 1941-March 1942[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]95[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Evolution of Europe-Wide Final Solution, September -December 1941[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]110[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Local Exterminations: Chelmno, Serbia and Reich Jews in RK Ostland[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]122[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Europe-Wide Final Solution, January 1942 – March 1943[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]133[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Killing of Soviet Jews, August-December 1942[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]140[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Aktion Reinhard and the Holocaust in Poland[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]146[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Origins of Aktion Reinhard[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]155[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Extermination and Labour[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]182[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mattogno’s ‘Resettlement’ Shell Game[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]212[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So Where Did They Go? “Resettlement” to the East[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]237[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Excruciatingly Slow Evolution of the Revisionist “Resettlement” Thesis[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]237[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Resettlement” for MGK[/FONT][FONT=&quot].. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]241[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Realities in the Occupied Soviet Territories[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]249[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Ostland[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]252[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ukraine[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]260[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Alleged Fate of the ‘Resettled’ Jews[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]264[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Gas Chambers at the Aktion Reinhard Camps[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]274[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A “Humane” Solution: Poison Gas and the Development of the Gas Chambers[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]274[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Original & Second Gas Chambers at Belzec and Sobibor[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]282[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Treblinka Camp[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]292[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Property Plunder[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]306[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Gassing Engine: Diesel or Gasoline?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]314[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Corpse Color[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]326[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Archaeology of the Gas Chambers[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]331[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Gas Chamber Ventilation[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]339[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Death Camp Witnesses[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]341[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]MGK’s Methodology (or lack thereof)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]343[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Treatment of Witness Testimony[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]347[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Direct and Indirect Witnesses[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]351[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dishonest Treatment of SS Witnesses[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]360[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hypocritical Use of Witness Evidence[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]366[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Witness Convergences[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]375[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mass Graves[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]380[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Number, Dimensions and Contents of the Mass Graves[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]381[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mattogno et al’s Claims: Nature and Purpose of Archaeological Investigations[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]399[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Human Remains Found[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]405[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Capacity of the Graves[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]414[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Soil Removed from the Graves[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]426[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Groundwater Pollution[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]428[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The "Actual" Surface of the Graves[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]431[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Density of Corpses in the Graves[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]436[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Burning of the Corpses[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]440[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Cremation Devices, Methods and Times[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]441[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Fuel Requirements[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]457[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Duration of Cremations[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]492[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Cremation Remains[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]506[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Why Cremation?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]516[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Conclusion[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]519[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Afterword: A Special Note by Jason Myers[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]530[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Bibliography[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]532[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Unpublished Sources[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]532[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Published Sources[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]535[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

We have tried to strike a balance between synthesising the state of the art of historical knowledge and debunking the lies and misrepresentations of denier gurus. Thus the critique is footnoted, utilises an extensive bibliography and also draws on unpublished sources from a large number of archives.

Already attempts by someone other than ourselves to start a discussion about the critique have been twice deleted on CODOH forum, so evidently the deniers will try to circle the waggons.

Nothing like this has been done since 2000 with the Irving-Lipstadt libel trial. The profile of the denier movement has dramatically declined in the past decade, since their defeat at that trial. It is doubtful that anything like it will be done again, much as it is doubtful that anyone will produce white papers like R. Mackey's debunking of David Ray Griffin in order to deal with 9/11 Truth Movement arguments.

Our motives were not to stem any kind of rising tide of denial, but to enjoy ourselves shooting fish in a barrel while also getting the chance to learn more about the history of the Holocaust in Poland. The other motive was to sum up a score of past arguments which have been posted on our blog, and thrashed out in various forum threads.

It is telling that none of the resident revisionists on here have made more than a passing reference to the targeted works. The disconnect between denier gurus, denier footsoldiers such as we see on JREF, and the mainstream is by now colossal. That disconnect is why nobody will bother to repeat this exercise in the future.

For several of us, completing the critique will also mean we are drawing a line under our internet activities in relation to denial. I for one will be mainly sticking around to see what kind of reaction is generated.

For there is really very little point engaging some of the JREF revisionists in the kind of pointless discussion that has been seen on here over the Christmas holidays when we have just finished writing a 570pp critique. The sensible response to further trolling on a variety of issues is to refer the deniers to our critique. If the trolls cannot cope with the material in the critique and come up with a coherent argument against it (one that does not involve the usual ad hominems and argumentae ad ignorantium) then there is nothing more to be said.

Obviously, others are welcome to refer the deniers to the critique as well. It is surely high time that whatever passes for discussion on this subject be raised to a higher level or brought to a close.

 

[Dogzilla]

Ever notice how they:

1) Sound so racist?

Anti-Semitic is more accurate than racist. They're probably racist too but, yes, I have noticed. It's funny because you have people like, zb, NT who defends the holocaust tooth and nail while dismissing all the bathit crazy talk of holocaust survivors as mere hyperbole. Or Wroclaw who also defends the sanctity of the holocaust while agreeing that holocaust survivors might not know what they're talking about or may be misquoted or maybe mistranslated. Or TSR who claims that we can't rely on the details of any random survivor account to be accurate because we don't know if that individual survivor is even capable of knowing if what the survivor said is true. But we should still believe them!?!? Of course, TSR also says holocaust survivors never participate in demographic studies of Jewish populations but those demographic studies are spot on accurate anyway.

It's weird because, as LGR recently noted, alot of these holocaust defenders say they are not Jewish. So they're not defending Jewish holocaust survivors out of some sort of misguided self-interest or sense of loyalty. But they do defend them. And they defend them in a very strange way: not by countering arguments with facts but by spewing hatred at anybody who questions them. But then they turn around and say that survivors exaggerate, they are prone to hyperbole, they say things that they have no way of knowing, they have suffered such trauma that we can't expect them to always tell the truth, and so on and so on and so on.

They seem to think that if they say Jews can always be trusted, it won't be anti-Semitic when they say Jews are all liars. How they resolve the cognitive dissonance is a mystery to me.

2) Always pretend there is no other possible explanation for anything they don't understand than "lying?"

Not that they don't understand. They don't care if they understand it or not. If it supports their position, it's true. If it doesn't, it's a lie. There's no possibility that a person might simply be wrong. Even if the person isn't wrong--actually ESPECIALLY if the person isn't wrong--anything that runs counter to their vision of the holocaust du jour is a "lie."

 

[LemmyCaution]

Aalot of these holocaust defenders say they are not Jewish. So they're not defending Jewish holocaust survivors out of some sort of misguided self-interest or sense of loyalty. But they do defend them. And they defend them in a very strange way: not by countering arguments with facts

The careful discussion, and evaluation, of survivor testimony in Christopher Browning's Remembering Survival: Inside a Nazi Slave-Labor Camp, concerning Starachowice camp, shows how clearly ungrounded and wrong your assertion is. In some cases, problematic recollections simply don't get used (as in earlier discussions in this thread, when Kovner's Eichmann testimony was raised, this testimony hadn't been cited in outlining events at Ponar precisely because of its issues, probably related to the time frame and memory difficulties); you don't know about such negative evaluations of individual sources, when certain memoirs or recollections aren't used by a historian, because the evaluation takes place before the writing and in a sense outside what is eventually published. Browning's book, on the other hand, is an example of a study that explicitly raises questions about testimony and explains the difficulties with testimonies about Starachowice, the context in which Browning lays out his views on how to understand - and use - this type of postwar testimony.

It is rubbish to say that historians, and those of us amateurs trying to elucidate the history, are blindly "defending" particular survivors when we do explain our approach to thinking about testimonies.

The fact is that even contemporary witness testimony has issues to sort through, as is well known by anyone involved with the court system. When it is pointed out that survivor witnesses are not omniscient, do not have technical knowledge, were exposed to highly stressful situations, should be compared to other witnesses and to documents, may have their original impressions influenced by later consensus, etc., that is not a "defense" of any individual or of a group of individuals but a description of the issues which need to be taken into account and which go for perpetrator and bystander witnesses as well as survivors.

Historians generally prefer sources that are closer in time or location to an event over those that are further away - the same is true of Holocaust historians, professional and amateur. That said, using the kind of care and evaluation discussed by Browning, historians make use of trial testimony, memoirs, oral histories and interviews, and other witness reports "at a distance" from events. Your fumbling around over this - and your incomprehension of how historians use such witness accounts - shows your naivete with history in general, not just the history of the Holocaust.

 

[TSR]

Or TSR who claims that we can't rely on the details of any random survivor account to be accurate because we don't know if that individual survivor is even capable of knowing if what the survivor said is true. But we should still believe them!?!?

,
Not even close to what TSR *Actually* said, but I know you wouldn't let that get in the way of a nice straw man rant.

I was referring to *a* specific detail in *a* specific account where we did not know
a) if it had been accurately reproduced by the denier offering it
b) the said denier has a habit of making crap up out of thin air
c) the said denier did not offer a proper citation so that these could be verified.

IOW, there are several details we *could* know, but for the shoddy scholarship of a denier.

I went on to say that while what the survivor *actually* said may have been completely accurate, we are dealing with at least one translation, and likely second hand reportage at that: each of which step could introduce errors having nothing whatever with the accuracy of the person originally referred to.

So no, I did not say, as a blanket statement, we should still believe anything at all despite these possible flaws, but that those flaws would need to be addressed *first* before an assessment on the accuracy of the original "witness".

Nice try, but if you cannot even keep straight who said what with the source material right in front of you (AFAIR, *I* was the first and so far only one to being up the translation issue) and then try to apply multiple fallacies to what's left, why should anyone take your little whine seriously?
,

Of course, TSR also says holocaust survivors never participate in demographic studies of Jewish populations but those demographic studies are spot on accurate anyway.

,
Really? Where did TSR say this?

The closest I can come was in response to your attempted falsus in uno fallacy, where you tried to build on your lonely fact fallacy to suggest that we cannot rely on eyewitnesses statements about 6M victims, and all I did was point out that no one was relying on eyewitness statements for that anyway.
,

<...>
And they defend them in a very strange way: not by countering arguments with facts but by spewing hatred at anybody who questions them.

,
Do point out the hate you see in the spanking I just gave you?
,

But then they turn around and say that survivors exaggerate, they are prone to hyperbole, they say things that they have no way of knowing, they have suffered such trauma that we can't expect them to always tell the truth, and so on and so on and so on.

,
No, we say that these things are true and must be taken into account regardless of the witness.

And then go on to point out how various statements can be tested against each other and against other evidence to evaluate the accuracy of those statements.

While your side desperately scrambles to distort what was said about a specific instance, and try to dismiss the entirety of a class of evidence based on that distortion.
,

They seem to think that if they say Jews can always be trusted, it won't be anti-Semitic when they say Jews are all liars. How they resolve the cognitive dissonance is a mystery to me.

,
Of course, this is another straw man: No one has stated that Jews as a class can always be anything at all, neither trusted nor distrusted, so there is no cognitive dissonance except maybe for someone who claims not to discuss things about which zie has no knowledge, and then does nothing but...
,

Not that they don't understand. They don't care if they understand it or not. If it supports their position, it's true. If it doesn't, it's a lie. There's no possibility that a person might simply be wrong.

,
Hmmmn. Sounds an awful lot like someone who is fond of the "degenerate" to describe discrepencies only zie sees.

However, it *is* a lie if you have been corrected on a topic and then go on to ignore that correction. It is also a lie to claim something like, oh I dunno, that there are decades of stories written at the behest of an organization which didn't exist for most of those decades, and then very obviously run from that statement when called on it.
,

Even if the person isn't wrong--actually ESPECIALLY if the person isn't wrong--anything that runs counter to their vision of the holocaust du jour is a "lie."

,
Wait wait wait -- according to many deniers, isn't the Holocaust sacrosanct and unchanging? How can there be a "du jour"?
,

 

[carlitos]

For several of us, completing the critique will also mean we are drawing a line under our internet activities in relation to denial.

Probably a good idea.

By the way, your blog link works, but all of the ToC links in your post seem to refer back to the JREF forum.

 

[TSR]

Probably a good idea.

By the way, your blog link works, but all of the ToC links in your post seem to refer back to the JREF forum.

.
Try here. But that doesn't fix the date on the post LOL.
.

 

[Nick Terry]

Probably a good idea.

By the way, your blog link works, but all of the ToC links in your post seem to refer back to the JREF forum.

The TOC was copied and pasted from a Word file, it isn't a hyperlinked TOC. One can be found in the blog post.

 

[Nick Terry]

.
Try here. But that doesn't fix the date on the post LOL.
.

No different to Screw Loose Change when they post-date their intro post so it stays on top. Duh.

 

[Saggy]

For several of us, completing the critique will also mean we are drawing a line under our internet activities in relation to denial.

What does this mean? You're leaving us? It would be a pity, it's been fun having you around. And, of course, it's been good to have a true representative of the 'academic' wing of the hoax on hand. The board will be much worse off without you, I confess.

I for one will be mainly sticking around to see what kind of reaction is generated.

LOL ! That's it, that's the reaction. LOL ! Do you think anyone is going to read that crap? I'd be surprised.

 

[TSR]

Do you think anyone is going to read that crap? I'd be surprised.

.
Denier "scholarship" in action, once again: I haven't read it, but it's crap...
.

 

[LemmyCaution]

.
Denier "scholarship" in action, once again: I haven't read it, but it's crap...
.

Indeed. In fact, part of the reaction Nick is no doubt seeing generated is, first, that few deniers will be seen even to have read the revisionist books critiqued and, second, that Saggy's position - "haven't read it, won't read it, but LOL" - will be fairly common.

Nick, Jon, Roberto, Jason, and Sergey have done real heavy lifting here - sticking at MGK's books; showing, from what I have seen (I am only part way into the critique), how short MGK fall as historians and as honest interpreters; and very helpfully synthesizing and consolidating recent research as well as responses to denial.

Having learned immensely from the authors of "Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka: Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard: A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues," I will miss their voices in these proceedings. But - and I am thinking, for example, of Saggy's quicklime quotation from this past weekend, which began with his confusion and then silence on its sourcing - I can well understand the line being drawn. I do hope that readers of this thread will read and consider the critique rather than greeting it with LOL's and other such know-nothingism without having read it.